I once had a Rolleiflex with the f3.5 Xenotar lens, and it was not especially sharp. My Rokkor lens on the Autocord is sharper. I sold the Rolleiflex.
Condition is everything. You probably had a faulty or malfunctioning Rolleiflex.
I have several TLRs, with the following 4 in heavy rotation: an Autocord, two xenar Rolleicords, a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar. All CLAd with lenses in mint condition. The 3.5 F was entirely rebuilt by the Rolleiflex guru, Magicflex.
My Autocord takes pictures that are indistinguishable from those of my Rolleicord Va and Vb (not better, not worse: indistinguishable) and my 6-element Planar 3.5F at f/11 or smaller.
However, f/5.6-f/8, the fully CLAd Rolleiflex is noticeably different (some would say 'sharper'? 'better'? I'll go with different) than the Rolleicords and the Autocord. At 3.5, my 3.5F is a world away from the Autocord and Rolleicords.
I'm not dissing the Autocord/Rolleicords: in fact my Va is my favourite camera of all times: light as a feather, amazing lens, robust and quiet.
Also, regarding the Autocord - as much as I love mine, I've taken some of my all time favourite pictures with it - is much, much more fragile than the Rolleiflex.
I know people really want to love their Autocords, but a well calibrated 3.5 Planar/Xenotar is something else.
Nope. It was serviced and collimated by Harry Fleenor. It was in excellent condition.
I'd recommend a second try with another sample.
There are some really heavily abused Rolleis around, many invisibly so. Some routine CLAs don't fix everything.
Also repairmen get old, make mistakes. Sometimes they'll offload the job to a son or a wife (happened to me once).
This is sample-based. I had a Xenotar (~1954) that I would have put up against any lens. Including a Kodak Ektar 100mm f/3.5, considered one of the absolute sharpest field lenses made. Then again, someone here has had a few copies of that Ektar and found them all unsharp. And among tessar-types, I had a 1949 Xenar on a Rolleiflex that was the sharpest I've ever used. And I've used the Rokkors on Autocords and had great results. Variation in both grinding and assembly, and optical bench assessment to create matched sets... I seem to hear more variance in Xenotars than Planars and such over the years but this isn't any studied issue for me, just aggregated hearsayif you say the Rokkor is sharper than the Xenotar then perhaps it is. The Rokkor is a sharp lens with higher contrast this is true.
And as a palette cleanser, I will revisit one of my favorite photo books of all time, Nancy Rexroth's 'Iowa'
Spectacular image. Clearly Ms. Rexroth did not choose the sharpest lens. (Few real photographers do.)
Agreed. Real photographers agonize, instead, over the perceived advantages of stand or semistand development over standard agitation techniques.
Shouldnt this depend highly where you look? I thought it's very well possible for a tessar type to be as sharp as more highly corrected lens in the centre at wide-ish apertures, just not toward the edges.if you say the Rokkor is sharper than the Xenotar then perhaps it is. The Rokkor is a sharp lens with higher contrast this is true.
Spectacular image. Clearly Ms. Rexroth did not choose the sharpest lens. (Few real photographers do.)
It's possible that mine was not an ideal example (I'm sure every manufacturer occasionally sent out a mediocre example of even their best glass), I'll concede that.
For some years in the mid-20th century, F&H tested every camera at the end of the production process with film. I have seen pictures of a film holder on a stand mounted against the film rails. I do not know when they stopped the 100% tests. If a camera did not pass some criteria, it went back for adjustment or replacement of the lenses. I suspect if you had a mediocre lens, it had been repaired incorrectly or some other alignment issues were affecting your body. 70 years passed, so I'm not surprised.
Agreed. F+H also hand-matched each pair of taking and viewing lenses to minimize sample error and ensure precision. I doubt any clunkers left the factory. But I am sure that decades of hard work took a toll on individual cameras later on.
Good. I wouldn't want the stand development discussion to get lost!As the misunderstanding about lens switching (swapping?) has now been resolved, I edited out most of the related discussion.
Hi folks,
I'm planning to part ways with my 500CM after my honeymoon, and moving back to a TLR, hoping to also pick up a Leica M2 with the remaining cash but we'll see..
I had a Rolleicord briefly that I picked up cheap and sold on for spares as it needed a lot of work and was missing parts etc.
I'm planning to use some of the money to buy a Rolleiflex as I really like the size etc of these and portability is key for me.
What I can't decide on is 2.8 Vs 3.5! This will be my only medium format camera for the time being, and as the lens isn't removable (to change mid-shoot) I want to make sure it's right! Rather than the speed, I'm more thinking about the quality of the lens, hopefully I wouldn't lose sleep over approx 2/3rds of a stop.
I also am unsure if Planar is worth the extra ££ over Xenotar?
Does anyone have any opinion on this and also which version e.g. A, B C etc to go for? I've read between the types and I can't notice any real world differences from what I can see! I don't care about having an in-built light meter, in fact I'd prefer one without but happy with whatever option.
If I decide down the line I want to do studio stuff, I'll buy an RB67 or something, but the Rolleiflex I want for general life, portraits, and landscapes etc but sharpness is important!
Thanks!
TT
Ha! A great end run around the Rolleiflex debates. Having used a Vb with the 6x4.5 kit as my everyday carry for extended periods, you should enjoy this. Pre-focusing and using the sports finder for portrait format is simple. And if you can find an 'F' focus hood with the flip down mirror for focusing, you can even focus at eye level when using portrait format.
I might give the 6x4.5 kit a few rolls to see how you get on with it. For me the Vb was sort of a 'sketch' camera,an everyday carry that I would use a bit relaxed, see what happens, etc. Hassys and 'Flexes can elicit a 'this is serious work' attitude at times. And yet I probably got more keepers with the 'Cord than the 'Flex for periods (says more about me than the cameras, of course).
The Xenar is an excellent lens. Off into photo-hooey land here, here goes- more open with nice microcontrast compared to a Tessar. Lower contrast. Not sure what lens you are using the M2 but it might blend well with the Xenar in feel.
Small, light, fits a knapsack easily. Enjoy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?